FIFTH COLUMN

Reciprocity

By C K Lal

Basant is the chairman of the organisation that publishes this newspaper. Given the hand-to-mouth existence of yours truly, his wealth is so immense that a comparison would be an absurdity. If difference of status were to be the deciding factor forget friendship, I wouldn’t even qualify to be his enemy. By the theory of reciprocity in a relationship, the reality our friendship should have been an impossibility.

Relationships between persons of different financial status, social standing, intellectual ability, ideological convictions, physical strength or worldly possessions can’t last if they are to be based on reciprocity alone. Instead, what helps in the format on of a relationship in the first place, and what keeps it going, is the concept of mutual respect.

What is true about two human beings, perhaps also holds good for two legal entities. Business relations thrive only when they are rooted in the idea of mutual respect, rather than on mere physical transactions of the moment based on immediate gains or losses. Incidentally, that’s probably the way two friendly countries should also behave with each other.

Indians should respect the sensitivities of a small neighbour intimidated by their mere presence. Nepal should try to understand the nervousness of fear-stricken giant that sees nothing but irritating ants behind every bush and behaves balefully to hide his anxiety. Then, they should sit down to address other’s concerns, not to safeguard one’s own interests. That’s the only way of achieving a mutually beneficial adjustment.

The so called Gujral Doctrine of magnanimity was sheer hogwash. India is politically too young, their Union is still too fragile, their decision-makers are all too unstable, and consequently, they are too insecure, to display any magnanimity. Reciprocity, the Mantra of their career diplomats, is another fallacy. There can never be a just reciprocity between a terrified elephant and a playful rabbit.

And that brings us to the negotiations between Nepal and India over the resumption of Indian Airlines flights, suspended unilaterally by the later. Probably it ended in a deadlock because both the parties approached it with what Thomas C. Schelling calls the “distributional aspect” of negotiation, where “each party is guided mainly by his expectations of what the other will accept.” This certainly is not the way to reinforce friendship.

Instead, Nepalis should humor Indians by allowing them to do their own ladder point frisking. Similarly, Indians should respect Nepal’s sensitivities and agree to Nepalis themselves doing a double-scrutiny of the baggage to be checked-in. Harping on vague ICAO conventions or non-uniform international practices merely create more confusion.

India and Nepal are too close to completely rely on each other. Our proximity creates an illusion of a back-stabbing embrace in the minds of the lunatic fringe on both sides. All the more reason for saner elements to ceaselessly work at creating trust and cultivating mutual respect.